A place to celebrate life in our borough, share ideas and hold the council to account

Menu

To create what Theresa May wants, we need non-selective grammar schools for all

Cllr Caroline ffiske, a councillor for Avonmore and Brook Green Ward and Governor of the West London Free School, writes:

Theresa May has announced that existing grammar schools will be allowed to expand, new ones will be allowed to open, and existing non-selective schools will be allowed to become selective in some circumstances. The government will publish a green paper setting out parameters and options.

We need to wait for the green paper to understand whether we can expect reform or revolution. And of course there will be a battle to get any package through parliament.

Surely, though, the contradictions in Theresa May’s announcement are glaringly obvious to all.

She says: “We are going to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.” Ok – so “not just the privileged few” includes the vast majority of kids who won’t get into academically selective grammars.

She says “That is why I am announcing an ambitious package of education reforms to ensure that every child has the chance to go to a good school.” So this means that all schools need to be good.

She says “A fundamental part of that is having schools that give every child the best start in life, regardless of their background.” Okay, so these reforms are for every child, regardless of ability.

Hang on. This is a policy announcement almost entirely focused on selection. It focuses on providing a better education for the already more academically able! According to The Times (Friday Sept 9), under one option that will be explored, “only schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted may be allowed to select”…. So the best schools will be allowed to turn away less academic pupils? This doesn’t make any sense.

Surely, the unfairness of focusing better education opportunities on the already most academically-able is glaringly obvious to all. What then is driving some Tory’s obsession with grammar schools?

I think we have a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. It goes like this:

Dog:
– Grammar schools have traditionally offered a very good education and get very good results.
– Therefore we need more of them.

Notice how the grammar school obsession tends to be 100% about the tail? We just need more academic selection and by some mysterious process we will give every child the best start in life, including the vast majority who don’t get into grammars!

Shouldn’t we, instead, take a look at how grammar schools offer a good education? And then make that as widely available as possible? Perhaps to all children?

So what is it that grammar schools do – and what should the Conservative Government really be trying to offer to all children? The answer is at least two-fold. Foremostly, grammar schools offer a challenging academically rigorous education. Secondly, they have strong discipline and good behaviour.

Grammar schools offer a challenging academically rigorous education

Grammar schools tend to focus on a small set of core academic subjects and teach them rigorously, with extensive content, and high expectations around what the children will learn and retain. Isn’t this what all children deserve? This has been the main focus of the Conservative’s education reform over the past few years. At the school where I am a governor (West London Free School) this is the core of our ethos. The refrain that the school has used is that we should teach pupils “the best that has been thought and said”. If I had my way the school motto would be “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. Isn’t this rigorous academic focus the good bit about grammar schools, and the bit that we should make available to all parents and children who want it?

Grammar schools tend to have strong discipline and good behaviour

The vast majority of parents despair when children bring home stories of disruption and poor behaviour in the classroom. They don’t like their children seeing rude or aggressive behaviour from other children. They don’t like to think of the disruption to learning if teachers are distracted and having to spend too much of their time managing behaviour.

Parents will try to keep their children “away” from such behaviour by choosing schools where they believe behaviour is good. We all know about the parents who “adopt a faith” to get their children into faith schools. If you think about it, particularly at primary level where academic results do not have much visibility, the popularity of faith schools is, in huge part, driven by parents’ desire for their children to be in a school with perceived good discipline and behaviour. I am sure this is also a large part of the popularity of grammar schools. Parents perceive that teachers will be able to get on and teach – and their children will be able to focus on learning.

Perhaps, then, Theresa May’s reforms should refocus on the dog and drop the tail. What if more schools adopt a grammar school ethos, but without the selection? This would mean we have more schools which teach academic subjects to all pupils and ensure they are taught rigorously with pupils building up and retaining extensive knowledge. And we would ensure that schools have the tools needed to ensure strong discipline and behaviour.

Theresa May said: “I am announcing an ambitious package of education reforms to ensure that every child has the chance to go to a good school … that gives every child the best start in life … regardless of their background“.

I hope this is, indeed, where we end up. In order to give every child the best start in life, regardless of their background, we need “grammar schools” for all who want them, with rigorous teaching as well as strong discipline and behaviour, but without academic selection.

We should reflect on the fact that the overall performance of the UK’s educational system is still mediocre at best – We are way down the league tables in essential skills like mathematics and reading. So the idea that we have finally found a successful model is not right – it needs to keep evolving.

I can’t see what is wrong with allowing certain schools to select a proportion of pupils according to various abilities, and especially pupils from poor families and failing areas. As Theresa May said: we already have selection by house price.

I do think it is unhelpful to look to London for the answers. The WLFS has been a huge success but the circumstances that prevail in this borough are quite unusual.The potential customer base for a local school comprises a completely hollowed-out and socially engineered demographic of the very affluent middle-class together with poor families in social housing. There are veritable squadrons of Toby Youngs, able to buy the house but not pay the school fees as well, who are highly motivated to set up and run ambitious free schools. They have the resources and connections to do it, and they pull the socially-deprived cohort along with them in the process. Latin and Greek, debating society, top button done up, social mobility thrown in on top – all wonderful.

But what about the more bog-standard parts of the UK with a bog-standard comprehensive down the road? Perhaps somewhere in Kent where many of the middle-income commuters forced out of London now live? I can understand why a new or expanded grammar school must seem very appealing.